Guys, I was up reading the book, The Polygamous Sex: a Mans right to the Other Woman, and I'm BLOWN away.

I totally see why this woman received death threats and so forth, Esther Vilar came out swinging in this book and she left no stone unturned in regards explaining the female nature.

Also, when reading this book I was better able to understand myself, as well as better able to understand other men, because she explains different type of men and how we have different needs. For example, I'm now better able to identify with Ladislav and most other men who are like him and how he talks about wanting to "take care" of women and like to feel more like a Chief because, as Esther says, he's a "father type" where as I'm more the rare "bachelor type".

"The bachelor type- the successive polygamous who is sexually motivated- is relatively a rare species. He is a man who is really looking for a woman, but always finds a child instead. Since he does not want to give up sex, he does take on the 'child' on as a sex partner, but usually not for long. He is likely to find her too simple-minded, not as a child, but as a woman. Since he wants no child, to begin with, and therefore does not readily offer to 'adopt' her the separation is usually not long in coming, often enough initiated by the pseudo-child, once she knows that marriage is unlikely.

The bachelor type is not altogether lacking in the nurturing instinct, but rather than women he tends to choose the more genuinely helpless to protect. He is likely to be an idealist fighting for a cause, for the justice or freedom, on behalf of the disadvantaged, the underdog or the like. Or else his profession as a doctor, social worker, political, enables him to act out his altruistic impulses enough to fulfill this need. He is therefore relatively immune, compared with most men, to the lures of women who offer themselves for adoption".

"A man who wants to gain power over a woman must follow the example of women and condition his sex drive. If he succeeds in becoming as cold as she, she can no longer bait him into the role as provider." (side note, this is what pimps say)

"A man who concentrates his sex and breeding instincts on the same woman, and has consequently attached himself to a markedly infantile specimen, is virtually courting a schizophrenic breakdown. He is likely to swing constantly from adoring his chosen mate to cursing her, raping her, falling at her feet, beating her, then offering to die for her. She will wonder at his eccentricity, but it cannot be otherwise since the two instincts involved are basically incompatible, a man who keeps trying to combine them is bound to fall from one extreme into the other.

Common sense will eventually drive a man to seek an escape from such an incestuous bond, landing him in either polygamy or prudery."

"Women always marry up the social ladder, a man always marry beneath him. Business executives marry their secretaries, while women executives will remain single rather then marry a mere underling"

"That most working women are employed in inferior positions is not due to 'man's oppression of women' but simply to the fact that by far the greatest number of women are work shy and expect to work only for a time; hence they prepare themselves for a career, if at all, only halfheartedly."

"Women don't mind being considered to be rather stupid. In fact, if helps their game. Women could be intelligent if they wanted to be. The proof of this lies in the fact that they not only don't seek to hide their mental inferiority but rather flaunt it- it is part of a woman's ploy in acquiring a male protector."

"This is all the poor man can afford: unlike the rich, he can satisfy his sex drive only occasionally, with:

a) women he cannot have on a fixed basis (promiscuity)

b) women anyone can have (prostitution)

Women he cannot have are the wives of other men. These are normally sexed women who have chosen security with a man they do not really desire physically so they can have to satisfy their sexual needs outside their adoptive arrangement. Frequently they are also women not yet attached (married) elsewhere, but still out for adoption."

"Sex with prostitutes is undoubtedly the 'best buy' in the sex market, but is also happens to be the most remote from genuine sexuality"

Over twenty-five years have passed since the publication of my book â€œThe Manipulated Man â€“ a pamphlet written in great anger against the womenâ€™s movementâ€™s worldwide monopoly of opinion. The determination with which those women portrayed us as victims of men only seemed humiliating but also unrealistic. If someone should wand to change the destiny of our sex â€“ a wish I had than as I have today â€“ then that someone should attempt to do so with more honesty. And possibly also with a little humor.

I would like to take the opportunity presented by the reissue of my book to answer two questions which I am asked again and again in this context.

People often ask me if I would write this book again. Well, I find it right and proper to have done so. But seen from todayâ€™s perspective my courage in those days may only be attributable to a lack of imagination. Despite all I wrote, I could not really imagine the power I was up against. It only seemed that one is only allowed to criticize women on the quiet â€“ especially as a woman â€“ and could only expect agreement behind closed doors. As we women have, thanks to our relatively stress-free life, a higher life expectancy than men and consequently make up the majority of voters in Western industrial nations, no politician could afford to offend us. And the media is not interested in discussing the issues involved either. Their products are financed through the advertising of consumer goods, and should we women decide to stop reading certain newspaper or magazine as its editorial policy displeases us, then the advertisements targeted at us will also disappear. After all, it is well established that women make the majority of purchasing decisions.

However, I had also underestimated menâ€™s fear of reevaluating their position. Yet the more sovereignty they are losing in their professional lives â€“ the more automatic their work, the more controlled by computers they became, the more that increasing unemployment forces them to adopt obsequious behavior toward customers and superiors â€“ then the more they have to be afraid of a recognition of their predicament. And the more essential it becomes to maintain their illusion that it is not they who are the slaves, but those on whose behalf they subject themselves to such an existence.

As absurd as it may sound, todayâ€™s men need feminists much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their animalistic instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Womenâ€™s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain status quo than anyone else. Without their arrogant accusations, the macho men would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press didnâ€™t stylize men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this â€œmenâ€™s societyâ€, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadnâ€™t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for my subsequent writing and even for my private life â€“ violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy â€“ who didnâ€™t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden â€“ necessarily had to become a â€œmisogynistâ€, even a â€œreactionaryâ€ and determined once and for all that someone who did not want to take part in the canonization of her own sex is also opposed to equal wages and equal opportunities?

In other words, if I had known then what I know today, I probably wouldnâ€™t have written this book. And that is precisely the reason why I am so glad to have written it. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the handful of people who have stood up for me and my work. Typically, most of them were women.

------

The 2nd and final part of her Introduction

The second question I am often asked is about the topically of the opinions I expressed then. To what extent is what I describe over twenty-five-years ago still relevant to the â€œnew womanâ€ and the â€œnew manâ€?

Here is a list of issues which I recognized in the original book to be menâ€™s most significant disadvantages compared to women.

1. Men are conscripted; women are not.
2. Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
3. Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
4. Men have no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion â€“ they can only get the children women want them to have).
5. Men support women; women never, or temporarily, support men.
6. Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
7. Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.8. Men only â€œborrowâ€ their children; women can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation â€“ with the reasoning that they have to work).

As one can see, if anything, the female position of power has only consolidated. Today a career in the military is also open to women in many countries â€“ but without conscription for all. Many achieved for themselves the right to practice their job for the same number of years as their male colleagues â€“ however, the retirement age was not increased for all of us. And now as before, it does not occur to to the underprivileged to fight against this grotesque state of affairs.

Only as far as the sixth point is concerned, has there been a significant change. In the more entertaining spheres of work, there are more and more women who happily and willingly work and still keep their job despite having the children they nevertheless desire. But only a few of these women would be prepared to offer a life of comfort not only to their children but also the childrenâ€™s fathers, supported by their often substantial salaries; and fewer would further be prepared, in case of separation, to give up their home and offspring and support the next admirer with what is left of her income. Also, men would not like it: emancipation may be fine, but to be â€œkeptâ€ by a woman is still not acceptable â€“ housekeeping and raising children is not worthy of a â€œrealâ€ man.

Sadly womenâ€™s manipulation of men is as topical today as it was back then, but so are the measures which could be used to end it â€“ to the benefit of both sexes. In the meantime, however, there are already a few feminists who are talking also about men as human beings, so the continuation of this discussion may not have to be conducted quite so loudly.